Talk:Ogonek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Against total merger of E-caudata[edit]

I tried to remove the merge tag, as it had attracted precisely zero support or talk-page commentary over six months. But it's been added back, so let me open the discussion here. E-caudata is not analogous to all the other letters with ogonek. As the article states clearly, "Under the name e caudata ("tailed e"), ę was used in Latin from as early as the twelfth century to represent the vowel also written ae or æ." This usage is notable and distinct enough for its own article, and the article's point in saying "under the name e caudata" is that this is not considered a letter-plus-ogonek. There's no question in my mind that e-caudata deserves its own article. Now, what is more debatable is whether the e-plus-ogonek usages (nasalized e) should not be combined into the article ogonek. This would be perfectly proper, and I'm in favor of it. Basically, my suggestion is that the article E caudata should, (A) be moved to that title (B) contain the sentence quoted above and the image there, (C) say that e-plus-ogonek is more or less typographically identical, for which combination (including computer representation of the character), see ogonek. That's basically the merest of stubs, but it's not information that properly belongs at ogonek. Does that make sense? (As for the article name Ę, perhaps a disambiguation page saying that in palaeography it's e caudata, but that in modern writing systems it's e plus ogonek. Wareh 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Reading your argument, my thoughts are the following:
  • The modern use of e-with-ogonek to represent nasalization, etc., should be merged into the Ogonek article. While there are a few loose articles for particular characters currently on Wikipedia, such as T-comma, S-comma, or Ñ, in most cases they we either never started, or later merged into the article about the corresponding diacritical mark.
  • On the other hand, there are precedents for opening independent articles for paleographic symbols no longer in use, such as Apex (diacritic) (although, personally, I am still unsure that it shouldn't be merged into acute accent).
The truth of the matter is that I tend to be more a lumper than a splitter, but I could accept the historical argument you gave for keeping the article separate. In that case, though, I suggest doing the following:
  • Move everything that does not concern the medieval use of this symbol as a variant of Æ into Ogonek.
  • Move Ę to E caudata.
  • Redirect Ę to Ogonek, or maybe turn it into a disambiguation page.
Best regards. FilipeS 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a consensus to me. E caudata is not exactly a major topic—I wouldn't mind if it redirected to a good article on Latin palaeography that included it, or to History of the Latin alphabet if that article covered it. But as it is the separation along the lines we've both laid out is far easier. I'll proceed along those lines once I see no further input is forthcoming. Wareh 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

French[edit]

And what with ogonek in French as below c in phrase "Ca va"? Is it an ogonek or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.130.238 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See cedilla. They may sometimes by typographically similar, but compare the e-with-ogonek pictured in this article with the e-with-cedilla pictured in that one. Wareh 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Old Norse and...[edit]

Ogonek is also mentioned on the page for the Scandinavian language of Elfdalian (but isn't linked from there). -- Flagstonia 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided the link & did some minor rewording. Wareh 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

alt-codes[edit]

Are the alt codes wrong??

When I try to write: Ǫ (alt-0490) I get: ê. I try to write: Ų (alt-0370) I get: r 194.144.217.14 (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ǫ[edit]

Should the similarity between Ǫ and Q be mentioned? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. The difference should be obvious. Though if someone wants to mention Ǫ in the article for Q, it might be a good idea.LokiClock (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ogonek Above[edit]

Should information on Ogonek Above be added here, or should a separate article be started for it? It's used in Old Norse for lengthening or mutating vowels.

http://www.mufi.info/proposals/n3027-medieval.pdf

LokiClock (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This raises some difficulties. Above on this page, someone mentioned Old Norse and Elfdalian in the same breath, but they are fundamentally different cases. Elfdalian's writing system is a very recent invention, and the diacritic is properly called "ogonek" and represents nasalization. "Ogonek" has some currency as a computer encoding and typographical term, including among Scandanavianists, but it is not traditional (compare the discussion of e caudata above). Haugen's edition and translation of the First Grammatical Treatise uses the term "o caudata" (o with tail), and this is more historically correct & standard in philological sources than "ogonek," despite the exceptions that can be found. The Medieval Unicode Font Initiative refers to "hook" (and note that the hooks can go in both directions, unlike ogonek). Google Book search will quickly prove that no reliable sources are out there referring to e caudata as "ogonek." Bottom line, streamlined Wikipedia articles and good-enough-for-graphical representation discussions by Unicode font/standard developers are no substitute for the traditionally correct understanding & terminology of subject area experts in these languages. I've attempted an edit to do justice to these facts; let me know here, of course, if that doesn't seem the best solution. Wareh (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Do you think we should just make a caudata article and merge/redirect e caudata with/to it? LokiClock (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the status quo is better for now, and that o caudata should be more fully treated in the Old Norse alphabet/orthography articles. (For that matter, as I said above, there's no real reason e caudata needs its own article: it could be folded into the main treatment Latin palaeography.) My reasoning is that it's hard to see how they could be connected as a single subject matter: the material for that connection may be there in technical palaeographical studies, but I don't expect to see it here in Wikipedia soon. I think ogonek does its job as the article for the diacritic, with links to specific combinations and the distinct Norse/Latin phenomena. Certainly, if Wikipedia added a diacritic called the "cauda" alongside the other diacritics, I'd be concerned that we had invented it through an original synthesis. Wareh (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

From Polish native speaker[edit]

First of all I can't believe that English took ogonek to use in english as word... It sounds weird. e-with-ogonek makes me laughing. How it comes you didn't translate it to tail or little tail XD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.117.90 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly any weirder than Polish words like weekend or menedżer.—Emil J. 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder, how is it pronounced in English, since English usually adapts loanwords to its own phonology rather than keeping the exact pronunciation? Something like [əʊˈɡɒnɛk], I would guess? 91.105.43.215 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the 1st Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (begun in the 19th century but not published in its entirety until 1928) used an 'ǫ' in its pronunciation guide to indicate the low-back vowel that occurs in words such as 'what', or together with a macron for the longer vowel of 'walk'—the sounds now represented in the current (2nd) edition by /ɒ/, respectively /ɔ:/?

The following explanation is taken from the preface, page xxiv: >As a general principle, each simple sound is represented by a single symbol. In choosing additional symbols, regard has been had to former usage or analogy; thus 'æ' was the Old English symbol for 'a' in 'at', 'ǫ' the Icelandic for 'o' in 'not';...<

Would it be however, as this bottom hook is located directly under the letter in question, 'ǫ', rather than towards the right-hand side that this is not, strictly speaking, a letter with an ogonek, but with something else—perhaps a reverse çedilla? On the other hand, an 'o' with an ogonek at the proper place could be confused with a small capital 'q'.

This edition of the OED is currently being put on-line, and the relevant page displaying pronunciation symbols may be seen here: http://archive.org/stream/oed01arch#page/n22/mode/1up....195.189.25.131 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Other occurrences[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that the 1st Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (begun in the 19th century but not published in its entirety until 1928) used an 'ǫ' in its pronunciation guide to indicate the low-back vowel that occurs in words such as 'what', or together with a macron for the longer vowel of 'walk'—the sounds now represented in the current (2nd) edition by /ɒ/, respectively /ɔ:/?

The following explanation is taken from the preface, page xxiv: >As a general principle, each simple sound is represented by a single symbol. In choosing additional symbols, regard has been had to former usage or analogy; thus 'æ' was the Old English symbol for 'a' in 'at', 'ǫ' the Icelandic for 'o' in 'not';...<

Would it be however, as this bottom hook is located directly under the letter in question, 'ǫ', rather than towards the right-hand side that this is not, strictly speaking, a letter with an ogonek, but with something else—perhaps a reverse çedilla? On the other hand, an 'o' with an ogonek at the proper place could be confused with a small capital 'q'.

This edition of the OED is currently being put on-line, and the relevant page displaying pronunciation symbols may be seen here: http://archive.org/stream/oed01arch#page/n22/mode/1up.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.25.131 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What's missing?[edit]

Thanks. Tells me everything except how to pronounce it -- what I came here to learn. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ogonek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)